The first two Muslim women elected to the U.S. Congress, Rashida Tlaiband Ilhan Omar, have shown themselves to be openly anti-Semitic and are friendly with Hamas-linked CAIR. Now they have achieved another first: they are the first Representatives to sign a pledge to impeach Trump.

The pledge was organized by a group calling itself By the People, “which bills itself a grassroots group that ‘came together because we saw that millions of Americans want the Trump Administration removed from office.’” This divisive group refuses to accept the fact that Donald Trump was elected by the people – the real grassroots of America who are fed up watching free countries become as strife-ridden as Islamic countries. The Palestinian Tlaib has brought the Palestinian jihad cry “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to Congress, with the Somali Omar’s full support. Tlaib (supported by CAIR) endorses a one-state solution, which would obliterate the Jewish state. Omar referred to Israel as an “apartheid regime” and helps raise money for CAIR; she is solidly endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, who rails against the “wicked Jews” responsible for “anti-black racism, slavery, colonialism and dehumanization” among other ills.

It is no surprise, then, that these hateful Representatives would want to remove President Trump.

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are the first members of Congress to sign on to a pledge launched by a progressive advocacy organization to impeach President Donald Trump.

ABC News producer Ben Siegel on Tuesday morning reported that the freshman congresswomen were first to back the pledge, which was organized by “By the People,” which bills itself a grassroots group that “came together because we saw that millions of Americans want the Trump Administration removed from office.”

“We are committed to ending this administration and creating a country that lives up to its founding ideals,” the group’s About Us section reads.

Tlaib made national headlines for remarks she made at a reception organized by progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org hours after being sworn in as a member of Congress, in which she vowed to remove President Trump from office, stating: “[W]e’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherfucker.”

Several top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), criticized Tlaib’s coarse language but stopped short of bringing another sort of punishment against the Michigan Democrat.

Addressing the Michigan Veterans Foundation days after the incident, Tlaib refused to apologize for her profanity-laden pledge to impeach, instead expressing regret that the remark became a political “distraction.”

“I understand I am a member of Congress. And I don’t want anything that I do or say to distract us. That is the only thing I apologize for, is that it was a distraction,” she said. “We have a course that we have to stick to, and nothing I say should distract us from that. The shutdown has to be at the forefront, that’s what I am here for, to shift to. This is so much more important.”….

Turkey: The Case of the Missing Priests

“Prior to the kidnapping, the bishops were on their way to Aleppo to secure the release of two other abducted priests…. When Paolo Dall’Oglio, an Italian Jesuit priest, went to Raqqa to secure their release, he too was kidnapped, and is still missing. I believe he was murdered.” — Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer.

Metin noted that the Assyrian and other Christian peoples indigenous to the region are still awaiting justice for the kidnapped priests and other Christian victims of persecution in Syria.

“Unlike Turkey, which has failed to investigate the crimes committed against the clergymen, there is an ongoing investigation in the U.S. on their kidnappings and another is being conducted by Russia… and the U.N. is investigating the financing of terrorism in Syria.” — Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer.

In 2013 Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Aleppo, was one of two archbishops abducted in Syria. He is still missing

It has been six years since two archbishops and other members of the Christian clergy went missing in Syria; their whereabouts still are unknown. Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Aleppo, and Boulos Yazigi, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, also in Aleppo, were abducted from their car in 2013. Their driver was later found killed.

Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer who has been following these cases and written about them extensively, told Gatestone:

“Prior to the kidnapping, the bishops were on their way to Aleppo to secure the release of two other abducted priests – Father Michel Kayyal, an Armenian Catholic, and Father Maher Mahfouz, a Greek Orthodox – who are also still missing. When Paolo Dall’Oglio, an Italian Jesuit priest, went to Raqqa to secure their release, he too was kidnapped, and is still missing. I believe he was murdered.”

Metin said that the terrorist who is believed to have killed the two clergymen — Magomed Abdurakhmanov (Abu Banat), is currently in jail in Turkey.

“While fighting in Syria, Abu Banat was the leader of the jihadist Katibat al-Muhajireen brigade. He was also a member of Jaysh al-Muhajireen wa’l-Ansar, affiliated with the Kavkaz Center, the official website of the Caucasus Emirate (Imarat Kavkaz), a pro-jihad, Chechen internet news agency. Jaysh al-Muhajireen wa’l-Ansar was initially aligned with ISIS and then pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. Banat was also a right arm of Abu Omar al-Shishani, who was once one of the most senior commanders of ISIS.”

Metin added that Abu Banat was first detained in 2013 for entering Turkey illegally, but was then released. However, Metin continued:

“After a police officer thought he recognized Abu Banat from an ISIS beheading video on YouTube, Turkish police raided his home in Istanbul, where they found weapons and ammunition. During his criminal investigation, police discovered that it was Abu Banat who had kidnapped the clergymen, and that he was a jihadist leader in Syria. They also learned that it was indeed Abu Banat who appeared in the decapitation video. ‘The people whose heads I chopped off were spies of Assad,’ he said during his interrogation. But the police did not ask him whether the men he beheaded in the video were the abducted archbishops, Ibrahim and Yazigi. It was an odd, careless investigation.”

Meanwhile, Metin said, international condemnation of the beheading videos spurred the Kavkaz Center, with which Abu Banat was affiliated, to distance itself from Abu Banat and clean up its image. This is why, Metin explained, the Kavkaz Center “published an article accusing Abu Banat of having been a Russian spy before his arrest in Turkey; of having kidnapped Ibrahim and Yazigi, and of then having ‘executed’ them by detonating bombs strapped to their bodies.”

Metin explained to Gatestone that the Turkish Justice Ministry has not allowed prosecutors to try Abu Banat and others for crimes committed against the archbishops. Abu Banat was tried only for “membership in al-Qaeda and for possessing weapons and explosives.”

According to Metin:

“A prosecutor’s office in Istanbul requested permission from the Turkish Justice Ministry to investigate Abu Banat for committing a crime against humanity. But the ministry rejected the request, on the grounds that the crime was committed in Syria, a foreign country, and thus it would be difficult to collect evidence there.”

Had such an investigation been launched, Metin said, “it would have exposed the Syria policy of then-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, which can be summed up as a ‘strategic swamp,’ which defines everyone from outside of Syria who commits savage acts inside Syria as ‘opponents of the Assad regime.'”

Furthermore, according to Metin:

“Abu Banat testified during his trial that his jihadist organizations were supported by the Turkish intelligence organization (MIT). Although there is no concrete evidence of this, Abu Banat claimed that he received weapons, money and vehicles from the MIT, and that he and the MIT were on the same side against Assad. Abu Banat complained that after he was imprisoned in Turkey in July 2013, he wrote letters to the MIT, with which he claimed to have been in constant touch while he was in Syria, but received no response. Currently, Abu Banat is in the Maltepe prison in Istanbul, but he has filed an appeal with the Turkish Supreme Court. If he wins the appeal, he could be set free.”

According to Metin:

“Unlike Turkey, which has failed to investigate the crimes committed against the clergymen, there is an ongoing investigation in the U.S. on their kidnappings and another is being conducted by Russia on the terrorist leadership of Abu Banat, and the U.N. is investigating the financing of terrorism in Syria.”

Metin noted that the Assyrian and other Christian peoples indigenous to the region are still awaiting justice for the kidnapped priests and other Christian victims of persecution in Syria.

“The abductions have shaken our people at their core,” Metin said. “We want the truth to be revealed, and Abu Banat, the person possibly best able to reveal it, is in a Turkish jail. The government of Turkey should finally do what is required, and get to the bottom of these crimes.”

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute and is currently based in Washington D.C.

Like this:

A Right Granted Us By God

One of my biggest concerns about America today is the erosion of Liberty envisioned by the Founding Fathers. This erosion is being exacted by the American Left dedicated to transforming the USA into a State controlled socio-political culturally humanist paradigm. This means the termination of Religious Liberty, Free Speech, Free Thought and the Right to Self-Defense that America has experienced largely thanks to the political institutions set into motion by America’s Founders.

In this editorial Justin Smith looks inalienable Right to self-defense that exists not because of a man-made document, but rather exists by the Will of God.

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” ~ Cesare Beccaria, 18th Century Italian jurist

American culture and this society have become so pusillanimous, that they have incredibly fought to tamp down and suppress the God-given right to the lawful act of self-defense and bearing arms to properly defend one’s person, family and property. More often we see both Democrats and so-called Republicans urging some manner of control over people already doing everything right, with the Democrats offering the harshest measures. It is as if they somehow imagine that limiting law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms will stop criminals and gun violence, which is akin to cutting the horns off a water buffalo as an answer to lion attacks.

Not the federal government, not the state governments, not any majority group of voters and certainly not any government official, elected or otherwise … none of the aforementioned have any legal authority to impede or infringe upon anyone’s God-given right to keep and bear arms, by any means or any measure or any arbitrary “rule” they color with the illegitimate use of the word “law”. A right granted Us by God as seen through Natural Law cannot be legislated out of existence.

[Blog Editor: On a personal I lean to the belief in the existence of Natural Law: viz., Law originating from God. But in full disclosure concepts of Natural Law and Natural Rights philosophically have a bit of controversy. So here are some titles to stretch your mind – perhaps you can locate yourself:

America currently has numerous states from California to Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont to Washington, New Jersey, Florida and Oregon trying to limit their citizens’ right to bear any weapon of the same sophistication as the U.S. military carries. Normally reticent as I am to quote the Supreme Court, as an example, due to its judicial activism, it is important to note that even the Court held this to be a God-given right that pre-exists government and the Constitution, in the majority ruling on Heller v. District of Columbia 2008. [Blog Editor: Bill of Rights Institute summary]

And yet, one more of the most egregious gun “laws” has just reared its ugly head in Ohio, without any more understanding of the Constitution than other pieces of legislation that have done nothing in L.A., New York or Chicago to stop gun violence.

Dean Rieck, head of Buckeye Firearms Association, had worked closely with legislators on this legislation. He observed that many bills were flying about at the time, with Democrats firing off their own amendments and lobbyists and protesters adding to the chaos. The confusion of the day made an environment ripe for human error.

While everyone involved is saying this was an “honest mistake”, it is highly suspect that it occurred during a lame-duck session of the state legislature. Even more suspect, the error wasn’t caught, until after the bill was passed. This just shows how incompetent or devious leaders of the day can be.

On March 28th 2019, any firearm of at least twenty-six inches and approved for sale by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, that is somehow not regulated under the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934, will be classified as “dangerous ordnance”. This turns an AR15, a thumbhole stock rifle, flash suppressors and other cosmetic features into dangerous ordnance and a felony to possess.

I submit that even a tax on firearms is illegal and unconstitutional, since it too carries an impediment of sorts to owning weapons. And here one must note, the NFA was held to be constitutional as a tax revenue measure. No entity has ever stated the federal government, or any government, has the power and authority to ban firearms of any type; this also is equally applicable to ammunition.

Many citizen groups and activist leaders, such as Jeremy Deter, have joined in protests, that forced the legislators to take heed and move for an immediate emergency fix, after initially stating they would have to wait 90 days before they could do anything. The Ohio State Legislature met on February 19th to enter a fix, at the urging of Senator Kristina Daley Roegner, who took a stand for the citizen groups, who introduced Bill 53. And predictably so, Democrats are now pushing back against any fix, as they contend no damage to firearms owners’ rights will result from Bill 228 as written, despite proof to the contrary.

Regardless of just how much damage it will or won’t do, without the proper correction to the error, the new “law” will be UnConstitutional as written, anyway one wishes to view it.

One option is to fix the error in the state budget, which will be introduced March 15th and passed into law on July 1st. This delay was called “unacceptable” by Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners.

Senator Cecil Thomas, a retired police officer and a CincinnatiDemocrat, noted that this all results from rushing through legislation in a lame duck session. Thomas said, “It’s just a bad way of doing business now, and mistakes are made …”.

Addressing the legislators, Eva Silvers, an advocate for the Second Amendment, called the law “unconstitutional” and exclaimed: “You took a constitutional oath to protect the people of this country. Will you enforce an unconstitutional law?”

Understanding the gun-grabbers will do everything in their power to keep this egregious “law” on Ohio’s books, calls have one out across the nation to meet on March 28th in an armed protest at the State Capitol Building. Ohio is currently an “open carry” state, and the reason for having the protest the day after the bad law goes into effect, is to show it is an unenforceable law. But, they are also getting county sheriffs on their side, who have already acknowledged they do not plan to enforce it as it stands, and if the fix is passed in the meantime, everybody will still meet on the State Capitol steps in Columbus, in celebration.

The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Second Amendment helps Americans defend and protect Our Life and Liberty, and that makes me happy.

All patriotic freedom-minded Americans must rush to the aid of their countrymen in Ohio and any and all the other states and stand firm, tough and ready in the face of illegitimate and illegal legislation, by way of all manner of protest and petition.

Wherever Our God-given Rights, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment are under heavy assaults by those who seek not to govern, over a sovereign nation of Free Born Americans, as their fellow patriot and brother in Liberty, seeking instead to rule as their lord and master, in a manner that reduces all to serfs of the state, We cannot allow it — We must not allow it, for it bears the name “tyranny”, and it will not reign over my children, their children and their children’s children, so long as there remains breath in my body, a rifle in my hand.

“The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” ~ John Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241-242 (1891)

A Muslim activist in the UK is claiming credit for this:I can reveal I recently had a meeting with Facebook to discuss #TommyRobinson pages and their impact in brainwashing his supporters to become terrorist and use violence against Muslims. A very good result and I am proud of my role.— Mohammed Shafiq (@mshafiquk) February 26, 2019

However, Tommy Robinson says: “…the reasons they’ve given are just complete lies. They’re saying I incited violence and that I openly called for violence against Muslims, that’s just a lie. If that was the case then they could show evidence of messages where I’d said that but I never have.”

Whatever you may think of Tommy Robinson, fascists such as Mohammed Shafiq are not going to stop with him. It will soon be impossible to voice any opposition to jihad mass murder or Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others on any social media platform. Then the jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded, which is the ultimate goal of all these efforts to silence critics of jihad terror.

Facebook has banned British citizen journalist and street organiser Tommy Robinson from its platforms, including Instagram, in a move that comes days after he released a new documentary exposing what he claimed to be dishonest practise at establishment media giant BBC.

The social media giant claimed in a statement published Tuesday that Tommy Robinson’s own Facebook page, which had around one million ‘likes’ before deletion, “has repeatedly broken [Facebook community] standards, posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate.”

Facebook claimed the move “is not a decision we take lightly.”

Responding to the ban, English Defence League founder turned citizen journalist Tommy Robinson told Breitbart London: “…the reasons they’ve given are just complete lies. They’re saying I incited violence and that I openly called for violence against Muslims, that’s just a lie. If that was the case then they could show evidence of messages where I’d said that but I never have.

“This is continued censorship which we all knew was coming but its been done instantly because of my documentary which exposed the establishment working with Hope not Hate, working with the BBC in order to destroy my name to the nation. When I exposed what they were doing they’ve put down the pressure to completely delete me from the internet. This has to show people the levels they’re gonna go to silence any opposition to mass migration and the Islamisation of this nation.”

Robinson’s removal from the platform is only the latest in a series of bans targeting the campaigner in recent years. He was de-platformed by Twitter in May 2018, bannedfrom receiving payments by Paypal in November of that year, and had Youtube videos blocked from earning revenue in January 2019.

Mr Robinson told Breitbart London that he would be working on his own mobile app for live streaming after his removal from several social media sites.

It is not clear what actions were taken by Mr Robinson’s social media page in the recent past to cause Facebook’s decision to remove him now, but the move does come just days after he released an exposé documentary claiming to reveal underhanded dealings at British state broadcaster the BBC. In the hour-long film, which Robinson uploaded to his Facebook page, it is alleged the BBC collaborated with far-left activist organisation HOPE Not Hate to create what was apparently called a “Tommy Takedown”.

Robinson’s film debuted at a protest he held in Manchester, England, outside the offices of the BBC where the Panorama documentary series is produced. Thousands are reported to have attended the heavily-policed event.

In the film, top BBC documentary maker John Sweeney can be seen being confronted by Robinson with undercover footage of him making apparently racist and classist statements. It is believed at least some of the claims and counterclaims between Mr Robinson, the BBC, and HOPE Not Hate may yet be contested in court.

Responding to the ban, Tommy Robinson ally and UKIP leader Gerard Batten said the rise of censorship showed the nation was headed towards a “dark place.” He said: “Without any explanation whatsoever, the personal Facebook accounts of key UKIP members and Tommy Robinson have been removed….

The SPLC’s vicious use of its “hate group” list to demonize and destroy legitimate groups that dissent from the Leftist agenda has gotten so bad that even the Washington Post took notice. Nonetheless, the Left’s authoritarian agenda is galloping forward, with steady bannings of dissidents from social media platforms. Soon only the Leftist point of view will be heard, and then an era of peace will dawn all over the West. Won’t it?

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman admitted during an interview with the Wall Street Journalthat PayPal works with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it considers blacklisting conservatives.

After being asked by the Wall Street Journal what “values” PayPal identifies with,” Schulman replied, “Probably the most important value to us is diversity and inclusion.”

“I think North Carolina was probably the moment that was the most visible, where we basically said this violates our core value and we need to make a very public stand on it,” claimed Schulman, referencing the time when PayPal pulled out of an investment in North Carolina because the state passed a bill making it mandatory for people to use the bathroom of their biological sex.

“Businesses need to be a force for good in those values and issues that they believe in. It shouldn’t come from backlash or people taking heat on it, because then it’s in response, as opposed to the definition of who you are and then how you react to the context that you find yourself in,” the PayPal CEO expressed, adding that the Charlottesville rally in 2017 was a “defining moment” for PayPal to start blacklisting conservatives.

Schulman claimed it “was a defining moment for us as a company,” that was “difficult,” because, “the line between free speech and hate, nobody teaches it to you in college. Nobody’s defined it in the law.”

During the interview, Schulman also admitted that the far-left SPLC helps to inform “PayPal’s decisions.”

“There are those both on the right and left that help us. Southern Poverty Law Center has brought things. We don’t always agree. We have our debates with them. We are very respectful with everyone coming in. We will do the examination carefully,” Schulman explained. “We’ll talk when we don’t agree with a finding: We understand why you think that way, but it still goes into the realm of free speech for us.”

The SPLC, which also reportedly works with Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, was forced to pay a $3.3 million settlements to anti-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz last year, after the organization included him on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists,” despite Nawaz being Muslim himself.

The lawsuit victory prompted at least 60 other organizations to also consider lawsuits against the SPLC, and in June, a Washington Post columnist declared the SPLC “has lost all credibility.”

The SPLC’s vicious use of its “hate group” list to demonize and destroy legitimate groups that dissent from the Leftist agenda has gotten so bad that even the Washington Post took notice. Nonetheless, the Left’s authoritarian agenda is galloping forward, with steady bannings of dissidents from social media platforms. Soon only the Leftist point of view will be heard, and then an era of peace will dawn all over the West. Won’t it?

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman admitted during an interview with the Wall Street Journalthat PayPal works with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it considers blacklisting conservatives.

After being asked by the Wall Street Journal what “values” PayPal identifies with,” Schulman replied, “Probably the most important value to us is diversity and inclusion.”

“I think North Carolina was probably the moment that was the most visible, where we basically said this violates our core value and we need to make a very public stand on it,” claimed Schulman, referencing the time when PayPal pulled out of an investment in North Carolina because the state passed a bill making it mandatory for people to use the bathroom of their biological sex.

“Businesses need to be a force for good in those values and issues that they believe in. It shouldn’t come from backlash or people taking heat on it, because then it’s in response, as opposed to the definition of who you are and then how you react to the context that you find yourself in,” the PayPal CEO expressed, adding that the Charlottesville rally in 2017 was a “defining moment” for PayPal to start blacklisting conservatives.

Schulman claimed it “was a defining moment for us as a company,” that was “difficult,” because, “the line between free speech and hate, nobody teaches it to you in college. Nobody’s defined it in the law.”

During the interview, Schulman also admitted that the far-left SPLC helps to inform “PayPal’s decisions.”

“There are those both on the right and left that help us. Southern Poverty Law Center has brought things. We don’t always agree. We have our debates with them. We are very respectful with everyone coming in. We will do the examination carefully,” Schulman explained. “We’ll talk when we don’t agree with a finding: We understand why you think that way, but it still goes into the realm of free speech for us.”

The SPLC, which also reportedly works with Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, was forced to pay a $3.3 million settlements to anti-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz last year, after the organization included him on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists,” despite Nawaz being Muslim himself.

The lawsuit victory prompted at least 60 other organizations to also consider lawsuits against the SPLC, and in June, a Washington Post columnist declared the SPLC “has lost all credibility.”

Like this:

I am on theWorld Truth Summitemail list managed by Elsa Schieder. Elsa sent a fascinating newsletter about the Islamic doctrine ofWalaa wal Baraa. I can only guess on how to pronounce this phrase which I presume is Arabic. According to Elsa andWestInDanger.com(linked to by Elsa) the phrase essentially translates to “Islamic Apartheid”.

In the interest of fair and balance, here is what a pro-Islamic explanation ofWalaa wal Baraa:

al-Walaa` wal-Baraa` as Revealed in Surat aal-‘Imraan

The legal meaning of Al-Wala’ (love, support, help, follow, etc.) is to totally agree with the sayings, deeds and beliefs which please Allah and the persons whom He likes.

In an age where truth is presented as falsehood, righteousness is translated to rebelliance and the preserving of ones land and dignity is called terrorism, there will naturally…

Killing babies before they are born is bad enough, but 44 freaking Dem Senators voted to perpetrate the death of a baby born alive when the child’s already egregious abortion failed.

WHY?

Senator Baby-Killer-in-chief Schumer felt protecting human threatened the Baby-Killer industry and by-Satan the Dems are going to protect abortionists at any cost to a human life that escaped the torture of a murderous abortion and lived.

If you live in a State with a Senator Baby-killer coming up for election in 2020, YOU need to decide you desire to align with live-birth baby-killing infanticide or to protect the basic human life from murder. HERE IS A LIST OF SENATOR BABY-KILLERS enabling YOU the voter to choose with protecting the life of new birthed baby or to MURDER the live birthed baby on election day 2020:

Senate Democrats on Monday defeated a GOP attempt to advance legislation that would clarify that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care.

Republicans and anti-abortion advocates pushed for the bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to receive a vote so that they could put individual senators on the spot regarding the issue of third-trimester abortion. GOP senators have been aiming to pressure Democrats to state whether they believe any limits should be placed on abortion after controversial comments appearing to indicate otherwise from Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.

The legislation fell short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in a procedural maneuver, 53 to 44. Democrats Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama joined all Republicans present in voting in favor.

“I don’t always follow the Democrats,” Jones told the Washington Examiner of his decision to support the bill. “Having studied the bill I think it’s the right vote.”

Republicans and Democrats largely talked past each other about the bill’s purpose during floor debate ahead of the vote. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who introduced the bill, said it would stop doctors from letting a baby die who survived a botched abortion. Democrats countered that the bill would limit what doctors could do after the birth of a baby who had a grave medical condition, and as a result either wouldn’t live past birth or wouldn’t survive long.

President Trump weighed in on the bill’s defeat several hours later, calling it “one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.”

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children,” the president tweeted Monday night. “The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth. This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….

During his floor speech ahead of the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would “target, intimidate and shut down reproductive doctors across this country” and “impose requirements on what types of care doctors must provide.”

“It has always been illegal to harm a newborn infant,” he said. “This bill has nothing to do with that.” He called the legislation “Washington politics at its worst.”

Sasse countered that the bill would keep doctors from “actively allowing a baby to die” who had survived an abortion.

“What this bill does is try to secure basic rights, equal rights, for babies that are born and survive outside the womb,” he said.

A group of House Republicans, led by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, walked on the Senate floor to support the vote.

Earlier this month, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., rejected a motion to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act via unanimous consent, a procedure which a sole senator can stop. Murray objected because, she said, the bill was unnecessary as the U.S. already has laws against infanticide.

Northam and Virginia Del. Kathy Tran, also a Democrat, said several weeks ago that they supported a state bill that appeared to allow abortion at the time of birth. Tran later said she misspoke about when abortion would be permitted and Northam’s office later released a statement saying that the governor’s comments were mischaracterized and had been intended to address cases in which babies wouldn’t survive birth because of deformity or another health issue.

Sasse pounced on the comments during the floor debate Monday, saying that Northam’s comments amounted to a “discussion about whether you throw that little baby in the trash can.”

Virginia tabled the abortion bill, but other states, including Illinois and Massachusetts, are considering loosening restrictions on third-trimester abortion. Supporters of looser restrictions say they are meant to address circumstances in which fetuses have severe medical conditions that would cause them not to survive birth, or that would result in short, painful lives.

The bill that failed Monday would have built on the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which clarified that “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes. That law was intended to clarify that babies were supposed to receive protections if they survived an abortion, and Sasse’s bill further clarifies what level of care they are supposed to receive, including being immediately transferred to a hospital.

If that protocol isn’t followed, then the doctor performing the abortion would face criminal prosecution. Republicans have noted the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortion provider who was convicted of killing babies after attempted abortions, as evidence that their bill is necessary. Democrats and abortion rights groups counter that the doctor was prosecuted and convicted, showing that the legal mechanism are already adequate.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., pointed to the 2002 bill when explaining his decision to vote against Monday’s measure, and saying that the previous legislation already clarifies that infanticide is illegal. Kaine, who has said he is personally troubled by abortion but votes to uphold abortion rights, said he didn’t receive any statistics from Republicans about why the bill was necessary and he said he would have wanted to see the bill go through committee first.

“When you have hearings on bills you get the facts out and you explore whether it’s needed,” Kaine said. “They didn’t even want to bring it to committee and that tells me I don’t think they had a real case to justify the bill.”

The Washington Examiner brings the best in breaking news and analysis on politics. With in-depth news coverage, diligent investigative reporting and thoughtful commentary, we’ll make sure you’re always in the know about Washington’s latest exploits.

The Washington Examiner is published by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group.